KenP writes 'when have resolutions at union meetings become a substitute for real science' - yet offers his blog posts to claim that the real science published by world experts is 'dishonest.' This specific to an exchange on dose and the EPA scientists' testimony to EPA management on a scientifically justifiable reference dose for fluoride.

KenP writes in his first three days on AARP that several participants are 'dishonest,' 'deranged,' 'liars,' 'unreliable' and 'so intellectually stubborn as to make rational discussion impossible,’ yet consistently writes things like "Bill, I wish you would back away from the personal attacks."

KenP writes that in optimally fluoridated communities dental fluorosis is caused 'mainly by ingestion of toothpaste.' Yet, when I offer two sources with urls and screen shots documenting dental fluorosis that predated fluoridated toothpaste (a 1956 PHS sponsored controlled dose study documenting 'coppery brown' dental fluorosis & 1962 government report that documented the first generation of children raised on fluoridated water had alarming rates of dental fluorosis, disproportionate by race in the same community), KenP replies that 'truth is your last concern,' that I made 'unwarranted claims' and spread 'propaganda' and 'fake news.' Then he says I refuse to enter into honest conversation about science?!

However - fluoridation policy should primarily be about ethics.

Is it ethical to use municipal water to mass medicate the public?

Is it ethical to add a poison to water that is medically contraindicated for many consumers?

Is it ethical to claim more science is needed before ending a program when dozens of human studies and hundreds of animal studies have validated neurological harm from that program?

Is it ethical for anyone to dismiss the poisoning of vulnerable populations as a political decision?

Is it ethical for AARP and other organizations that claim to advocate for a constituency to remain silent?

Re: Examine the Evidence

Bill, I wish you would back away from the personal attacks. I know this is encouraged by your colleagues in the Connett crowd - but come on. You are surely capable of a good faith scientific exchange. Instead of attacking me when you think I am wrong point to the evidence. That is what I respect. I have no respect for personal attacks or ideologically motivated propaganda and distortion of the science.

You say the "Broadbent study has serious limitations and incapable of determining harm. " But you don't list the "serious limitations." I assume you mean the Connett/Hirzy analysis when you say it was "incapable of determining harm." This is just another way of saying the effect (which you assume, without evidence, must be there) is so small it cannot normally be detected because of limitations of sample size. The sample size used by Broadbent was already largest than most studies bunt the Swedish study used a huge sample size and still could not find the negative effect you hope for.

(I suppose you will also fall back on this argument for the fact that the Bashash study was unable to show a relationship of child urinary F to IQ).

The overlap of treatments, (fluoridated, non-fluoridated, supplements, breast feeding, etc., is accommodated by the multiple regression analysis. Any extreme overlap will increase the sizer of the CIs, sure, but that is all. Partial overlap does not nullify the results - you are confused because this is not the sort of study that the Connett crowd usually promotes - comparison of two villages in China. It is a multi-factorial study using multiple regression.

It is truly silly to sate as you do:

“The study compared water fluoridation (assuming some or all were actually drinking the water) with fluoride supplements (assuming most or all were taking fluoride supplements). And there were other confounding factors as I remember of polution, urban/rural, lack of measured data etc.” This was not a two-factor study – it was a multi-regression study.

You are perhaps unaware that the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health & Development Study has a very high approval and status internationally. It is truly impressive. You are wrong about factors measured because blood tests (and I think urine tests) are regularly made.

The huge amount of data enabled Broadbent et al to answer all the criticisms made of their study by going back to the data and including new data (for example Pb) in the regression. It is a truly very useful and thorough study which has produced a large number of publications:

Bill, you are the one who should think. And to think properly you need to abandon the chains of your bias. Considering you are embedded in the Connett crowd I can understand this is difficult for you. But you could make a start by avoiding personal attacks and instead deal with the facts as I present them and as the studies present them.

What about moving on from the Broadbent et al study - you are not going to win that one considering the high credibility it has. What about dealing with my critique of the Bashash studies – after all the Connett crowd seem to think these are the best thing since sliced bread now (although that might change if Bashash et al ever get around to including maternal nutrition in their multiple regressions.

Re: Examine the Evidence

Take the blinders off. You really frustrate me. I feel like I'm communicating with a brick wall.

The Broadbent study has serious limitations and incapable of determining harm. I've gone over that study with you before. Why are you still quoting the mythology of Broadbent?

Come on man. Think.

Most of the controls were taking fluoride supplements. No urine or serum fluoride concentrations were measured.

The study compared water fluoridation (assuming some or all were actually drinking the water) with fluoride supplements (assuming most or all were taking fluoride supplements). And there were other confounding factors as I remember of polution, urban/rural, lack of measured data etc.

Ken you make no sense. You are not capable of understanding total exposure of fluoride. You evade and avoid the foundation of science.

If you are standing in water up to your nose and someone adds 2 more inches of water and you drown, which two inches of water is to blame? The total amount of water caused the drowning.

There are many sources of fluoride and many are ingesting too much fluoride from many sources; medications, foods, pesticides, post-harvest fumigants, toothpaste, etc.

Because too many are ingesting too much fluoride, what source of fluoride should be reduced? What caused the excess? All sources, not just water fluoridation.

It is a no brainer, intentionally adding more fluoride to people already ingesting too much fluoride is barbaric. STOP fluoridation is logical because fluoridation serves no other purpose than the mythology of mitigating/preventing dental caries

You want me to discuss with you, but you fail to answer the obvious questions on dosage because you do not have answers for the obvious essential questions.

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

CarryAnne - you should take your own advice - "Repeating a lie doesn't make it true."

You make unwarranted claims and provide citations which often do not support them. That is simply propaganda.

Now, if you were actually willing to enter into good faith, uncensored, open exchange of the science of your claims and citations that would be different. But I think you are aware of that and your demonstrated refusal to enter into a normal human exchange indicates you are very aware you are simply in the propaganda business - truth is your last concern.

Naturally, people have built up immunity to propaganda like this. We can recognise fake news when we see it.

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

The controlled dose study in the 1950s before fluoridated toothpaste documented coppery brown staining and and thin enamel in some of those children. (Prenatal and postnatal ingestion of fluorides - A Progress Report. Reuben Feltman, D.D.S. Dental Digest. August 1956.)

The 1962 govt memo from the first fluoridation trial city documented a disproportionate dental fluorosis impact well in excess of what predicted, again from before fluoridated toothpastes, i.e. 15% white v. 35% black children. This is why fluoridation policy is an environmental justice issue and opposed by many human rights activists.

“When studying any matter, ask yourself two things: what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted by what you wish to believe, or what you think would have beneficent social effects if it were believed.

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

CarryAnne - you claim "Fluoridation has been proved dangerous by hundreds (perhaps a thousand or more) studies."

Considering the subject under discussion and normal use of the word I am assuming you mean community water fluoridation.

Could you please cite a couple of these hundreds/thousands of studies?

I am aware of several studies investigating harmful effects from community water fluoridation - the New Zeland, Candian and Swedish studies are examples. None of these showed any evidence of harm -quite the contrary.

So I am curious what hundreds and thousands of studies on community water fluoridation you have picked up and I have missed.

And since when have resolutions at union meetings become a substitute for real science?

Re: Examine the Evidence

Bill, it's not a matter of studies being "flawed." All studies have limitations - its a matter fo discussing them.

The Broadbent study was part of the world acclaimed Dunedin study and therefore had many advantages. It did answer the question of whether fluoridation itself caused cognitive deficits - which has been the claim of the Connett crowd for the last few years. It doesn't.

Any limitations are minor compared with those of the poor quality Chines studies made in areas of endemic fluorosis - the most obvious of those limitations is that those studies had nothing to do with fluoridation and that health problems are very common with people living in such areas.

Specifically, there is no evidence that F intake was unusual in the NZ study - drinking water could be presumed to be the main source. Water sources were "not problematic" - there was either CWF or not. And "other flaws" is simply a copout. You cannot find anything of significance wrong with that study.

I have asserted that the major limitation of that study (and of most other studies to a large extent) is the confidence intervals - the sizes of which are determined by sample number. For this reason, Broadbent has pointed to the Swedish study as being more important in that CIs were very low as the sample numbers were very high.

You do not say what the "serious flaws" of the Swedish study were - I can only assume that in the eyes of the Connett crowd the "serious flaws" in all fluoridation studies is that they do not give the answers Connett wanted. If they did he would have been lauding those studies as the best things since sliced bread. Their disgusting behavior over the NTP study shows this - Connett predicted that study would lead to the end of fluoridation worldwide and was very flattering in describing the study - until it produced a result he did not want (no effect of F on cognitive abilities). Now he and his crowd are slandering the research and the researchers.

Yes, dental fluorosis of serious or moderate form is a sign of excess fluoride and it is the sole factor used in defining the upper limits in drinking water. The research indicates that in communities where community water fluoridation is used (and therefore in which drinking water does not contain excessive fluoride) the major cause of dental fluorosis is excessive consumption of other fluoride sources - mainly ingestion of toothpaste.

No, that 2% with moderate or severe dental fluorosis is not something to be happy about. That is why health authorities do campaign on how children should use toothpaste and how to avoid excessive consumption of toothpaste.

I look forward to your response to my comments on the Bashash studies - the comments which CaryAnne simply refuses to respond to as she avoids any proper scientific exchange.

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

And F has no physiologic role in urine or blood and is in urine because the kidneys,are eliminating a toxic waste from the system. Unfortunately fluoride accumulates in bone before the kidneys can eliminate it all.

Re: Examine the Evidence

On page 91 in the NRC 2006 Report it is clear that in the 8 studies examined for urine fluoride that the water fluoride concentration typically matches that in the urine over the range 0.09 to 2.7 ppm.

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Fluoridation has been proved dangerous by hundreds (perhaps a thousand or more) studies, even those at low dose concentrations. Additionally, toxicology guidelines dictate that the animal studies that find damage at 10, 50, and 100 mg/L are sufficient to ban fluoridation as unsafe for vulnerable sub-populations. Since those guidelines are not followed, it seems U.S. EPA scientists are correct when they claim fluoride is a 'politically protected pollutant.'

Fluoridation policy is a reckless public harm policy, that is particularly dangerous to the very young, those in fragile health and senior citizens. Fluoridation policy is scientifically and ethically corrupt.

"We applied EPA's risk control methodology, the Reference Dose, to the recent neurotoxicity data. The Reference Dose is the daily dose, expressed in milligrams of chemical per kilogram of body weight, that a person can receive over the long term with reasonable assurance of safety from adverse effects. Application of this methodology to the Varner et al.\4 data leads to a Reference Dose for fluoride of 0.000007 mg/kg-day. Persons who drink about one quart of fluoridated water from the public drinking water supply of the District of Columbia while at work receive about 0.01mg/kg-day from that source alone. This amount of fluoride is more than 100 times the Reference Dose. On the basis of these results the union filed a grievance, asking that EPA provide un-fluoridated drinking water to its employees. "